Sunday, July 14, 2013

This is the Statement of Andrea Davison former Intelligence Operative and Child Abuse whistle-blower who is currently a refugee in South America, where at the age of 62 years she fled following years of persecution by the British Establishment. Please donate to her defense fund and help Andrea to get back CSA documents, including parts of the Dickens dossier, taken by the Police.

Andrea Davison

MACUR REVIEW

STATEMENT OF ANDREA DAVISON

1.GENERAL
BACKGROUND

The Terms of Reference of the Waterhouse Inquiry announced
on 17 June 1996 were:-

(a) To inquire into the abuse of children in care in the
former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974;

(b) To examine whether the agencies and authorities
responsible for such care, through the placement of children or through the
regulation or management of the facilities, could have prevented the abuse or
detected its occurrence at an earlier stage;

(c) To examine the response of the relevant authorities and
agencies to allegations and complaints of abuse made either by children in
care, children formerly in care or any other persons, excluding scrutiny of
whether to prosecute named individuals;

(d) In the light of this examination, to consider whether
the relevant caring and investigative agencies discharged their functions
appropriately and, in the case of the caring agencies, whether they are doing
so now; and to report its findings and make recommendations to the Secretary of
State for Wales.

1.1In 1994 the Jilling’s report, by the former Director of
Derbyshire Social Services Mr Jillings and his panel, detailed the rape and torture
of children in Care Homes in North Wales.

1.2The Report stated that allegations involving famous
names and paedophile rings were beyond its remit, and something best addressed
at a potential later public inquiry. It found a child care system in
which physical and sexual violence were common, from beatings and bullying, to
indecent assault and rape. Children who complained of abuse were not believed,
or were punished for making false allegations.

1.3Mr Jillings and his team were hampered by the NWP. The
Chief Constable David Owen refused to meet them or help with access to the
police major-incident database

1.4130 boxes of material handed over by the council to the
NWP were not made available to the panel and the council did not allow the
inquiry to place a notice in the local press seeking information.

1.5In November 2012 Roger Dobson for the Independent published:-

The then newly appointed North Wales Chief Constable, who
was un-contactable yesterday, refused to meet them or help with access to the
police major-incident database. "We
were disappointed at the apparent impossibility of obtaining a breakdown of
data. We are unable to identify the overall extent of the allegations received
by the police in the many witness statements which they took.''

1.6Some one hundred and thirty boxes of material handed
over by the council to the police were not made available to the panel and the
Council did not allow the panel to place a notice in the local press seeking
information.

1.7In his report Mr Jillings said “What we found was horrific and on a significant scale. If the events in
children's homes in North Wales were to be translated into a film, Oliver Twist
would seem relatively benign. The scale of what happened, and how it was
allowed, are a disgrace, and stain on the history of child care in this
country.”

The significant points are that:-

1.7.1The North Wales Police (NWP) withheld evidence
and obstructed Mr Jillings. This failure should have been itself the subject of
an Inquiry considering the number of NWP Officers named by the victims as
abusers. Certainly Tony Blair who was shadow Home Secretary at that time believed
an Outside Force was essential for the truth to be discovered.

1.7.2The Macur Review could ask the former Chief
Constable David Owen to explain his reasons for obstructing Mr Jillings and
make inquiries into the 130 boxes of evidence, if these 130 boxes were not provided to the Waterhouse
Tribunal. Further inquiry into the reasons why prosecutions did not take place of
the NWP Officers named as abusers.

1.7.3The Council, responsible for using public money
to fund Care Homes where children were sexually, physically and mentally abused
and who were, responsible for the Care and Protection of the Children therein,
obstructed Mr Jillings by preventing him from advertising for victims to come
forward.

1.7.4In conclusion, the fact that those
organisations responsible for the care and protection of the children, and who
could alone act on complaints, were actively involved in an apparent cover-up
of the rape, sexual abuse and torture of those children was a matter which
should have been properly investigated by an outside Police Force. This was
never done. Neither did the Waterhouse Inquiry investigate the vast amount of
evidence and testimony of the cover-up or the evidence of an elite paedophile
ring.

1.8Following the public outrage at the suppression of the Jillings
report and suffering continued public pressure William Hague, then Secretary of
State for Wales, was forced in 1996 to order a Tribunal of Inquiry. The Inquiry
was to look into allegations of hundreds of cases of child abuse in care homes
in former county council areas of Clwyd and Gwynedd between 1974 and 1990. Sir
Ronald Waterhouse QC, a retired High Court judge, was appointed to head the
inquiry.

1.9The inquiry began in January 1997 and sat for 203 days,
and heard evidence directly from 250 witnesses, attracted 200 additional
personal statements, and in total heard from more than 650 people. It cost
£13.5 million pounds and produced a report in 2000 called ‘Lost in Care’ which
although damming had limited its scope to mainly abuse inside the homes from
the staff. The Inquiry failed to address the allegations of abuse outside of
the actual physical curt ledges of Care Homes which abuse was alleged to be by
an elite paedophile network involving allegations against Famous names,
Politicians, Police Officers, Judges, Legal Professionals and Businessmen.

1.10I intent to demonstrate that in my view the terms of
reference of the Waterhouse inquiry were woefully inadequate and where adequate
show that the Inquiry restricted its own terms to the extent that it was a very
effective Inquiry limited to the abuse and torture by the staff of children in
the Care Homes.

1.11The Result of the limits the Inquiry placed upon
itself operated to prevent proper inquiry and investigation into the systematic
abuse of children, over decades, and their exploitation by a ‘VIP paedophile
ring’ and use as commodities in the lucrative child porn network with its links
to Peter Righton, the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and the Home Office
itself. The Inquiry also operated to reduce public speculation into the
allegations against public figures and linked criminal activities.

1.12The resulting report ‘Lost in Care’ whilst dealing with
the allegations made against staff by the children in effect stifled further
investigation into the Elite Paedophile Ring, the child porn Network and the criminal
financial gain made by the Directors of the Care Homes and those who procured
children for exploitation by an elite Paedophile network.

1.13Inquires can expose wrongdoing or close down all
investigation into the wrongdoing by presenting the fiction that a full
investigation has taken place and either the issue has been fully addressed and
nothing outside of those matters discovered exists.

1.14The current Macur Review has the opportunity to redress
the wrongs of the original Inquiry and dispel public concern and concerns of
investigators and journalists, whistleblowers and victims that a full and
proper investigation will not take place into the historic abuse of children in
care. Particularly where that abuse was by public figures, police officers and
members of the judiciary.

1.15The Macur Review should obtain the evidence from all
parties who hold evidence and have those accused of abuse or cover-up of the
abuse, police and victims exposed to scrutiny and questioning. This Review has
the opportunity to end organised child abuse in the United Kingdom.

2PERSONAL BACKGROUND IN BRIEF

2.1During the 80’s and 90’s I was based in North Wales working
for and with the Intelligence Services mainly on investigations concerning the
illegal supply of arms and technology to Iraq Iran and the Former Yugoslavia. I
was involved in an investigation into the transfer of Chemical and Biological
Warfare (CBW) technology to Iraq. At one point I was working with a strictly
military intelligence section and when the Gulf war started all the reserves
were called up and I became involved in detecting sabotage and other matters.

2.2During the course of the investigation clear links were
identified between illegal arms sales, drugs trafficking, support for terrorist
groups and the sale and distribution of child pornography, including snuff
videos. The illegal arms trade is connected to a much larger organised criminal
network. The fact that sections of the Conservative Government, the police and
government agencies were involved made it more perilous and destructive to the
fabric of society. No-one knew who is working for whom!

2.3I was later to give evidence of these matters in secret
to Lord Justice Scott’s Inquiry into ‘Arms to Iraq’ (Sample Documents 1
and 2)

2.4I became involved in the investigation of child abuse in
1989 whilst carrying out a search of a suspect xxxxxxxxx premises. We found hard drugs and child
pornography in video and photographic form. Some of it looked ritualistic. The
suspect was involved with a company called xxxx Technology. xxxxx was engaged
in research at a building connected with Bangor University. The investigation
concerned tech transfer of biological weapons data to Iraq. xxxxxxxx lived close to
and was associated with xxxxxx who ran the xxxxxx gym in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx following further investigation it was discovered that xxxxxxxxxx was distributing pornography on a
large scale including child porn videos and highly priced snuff videos, where a
child would be sexually abused and murdered on film. xxxxxxxa former mercenary was involved
with another mercenaryxxxxxx who had been in Angola. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxe were protected by the Police and certain
sections of the intelligence community for which they worked, I understand, on
contract.

2.5Following the discovery of the child porn, mentioned
above I decided to run an unsanctioned parallel investigation into child
pornography. This included an investigation into ‘snuff’ videos. I discovered
some of the children exploited were from local children’s homes where there
appeared to exist a ready supply of children.

2.6Having been myself an abused child, cruelly committed at
14years of age to two and a half years in the now infamous Approved School
Duncroft, I was keen to expose the abuse of children in state run
establishments. It was at Duncroft that I first learnt about the Paedophile
Network.

2.7Around this time I secretly met DC Nick Lewis from the
North Wales Drug Squad in a car park in Seiont Manor. I later secretly met Nick
Lewis and DI Maldwyn Roberts of a Bridge in Caernarfon at the request of Nick
Lewis. They asked me to help them with the an investigation into child abuse
and Satanic Ritual Abuse they told me it was a Home Office Directive and asked
for my confidence. I agreed to assist them and did so and did share some
information with them and passed them evidence. I kept detailed notes in my
diary.

2.8The Macur Review may want to ask DC Nick Lewis and DI
Maldwyn Roberts for their testimony concerning these matters.

2.9When the opportunity arose I asked colleagues to check
the Home Office Directive and they came back with a negative. Following this I
was briefed about PIE, which had at one time been printed in the Home Office
and the use of child porn and paedophilia by M15 to control influential people.
The briefing included information about the abuse of children in local Care homes,
the extended elite paedophile network and the lucrative child porn sex trade. I
was firmly told not to trust anyone in the NWP because they were deeply
involved.

2.10It was at this time I realised the cover-up was
actually more revealing than the actual abuse itself and more complex,
convoluted and insidious. Without the systematic and organised cover-up of the
abuse by the Police the abuse could not have continued. It became clear to me
that the abuse and cover-up was supported also by a network of paedophiles and
a wider criminal network involving rogue elements within Police Forces, State
Agencies and Government itself.

2.11Decades of cover-up had led directly to children being sexually,
physically and psychologically abused by protected paedophiles since the 1960’s

2.12The Macur Review has the opportunity to ask the
intelligence and security services for all their files, including photographs
and videos, on and of politicians and VIPS’s involved in paedophile activities
and or paedophile rings. Similar files exist on judges, civil servants and
police officers. Some files include police files which have been confiscated by
the security services. The intelligence and security services have all the
names and details of what happened where and when and who was and is involved. This
disclosure is necessary so that those who may have been wrongly accused can be identified.
Also disclosure of this hidden evidence is vital if child abuse, sanctioned,
protected and covered-up by state agencies, is to be eliminated from the United
Kingdom.

2.13The paedophile network specifically included members
of the police and the judiciary as well as businessmen, solicitors,
politicians, security and intelligence insiders. This network by its very nature
is linked to other types of organised crime with direct links to the lucrative
child porn industry and sex trade, drug trafficking, arms dealing and
terrorism. The people involved in these different branches of organised crime
covered each other’s backs and actively supported each other to their mutual
benefit.

2.14In 1989 the only way to prevent further arms and
technology transfer to Iraq was to expose the Governments involvement and I was
instructed to approach the Labour party in opposition and work with the media.
Consequently I worked closely with Politicians in the Labour Party spending
much time in Parliament and otherwise I was briefing the Press.

2.15At the same time I chose to expose child abuse and
Police corruption. Working initially with local officials in North Wales
including Dennis Parry who was then Labour Leader of Clwyd Council who worked with
Malcolm King then head of Clwyd council Social Services children’s committee. Dennis
Parry said ‘we are fighting a machine
trying to cover things up’. He accused the NW Police ‘of mounting a cover-up to
conceal the failure of senior officers and social services executives to reveal
the extent of abuse in the children’s homes’.

2.16From 1990 to 1996 I worked with Journalist xxxxxxx
on Scallywag Magazine and its successor Spiked Magazine exposing child abuse. Where
details could be verified or affidavits taken from the victims Scallywag and
its successor Spiked published regardless of the consequences. Articles were
published about PIE of which Peter Righton and Jimmy Savile were members, and
about the Jillings report and Spiked called for a Public Inquiry.

2.17There was a dedicated group of journalists from HTV,
the Independent and Wales On Sunday and freelance journalists such as Eileen Fairweather
who from about 1992 started to write and broadcast about the child abuse and
the Paedophile Ring.

2.18The NWP tried to silence me and I suffered concerted
and obvious persecution. Arrested several times and interrogated, the NWP tried
to find out who I was working for and repeatedly asked me who I was working for!

2.19The lady next door to me xxxxxxxxs disappeared
and I was questioned by Chief Inspector Gareth Luke told me confidently they would
find blood and hair in the boot of my vehicle and he would charge me with her
murder. The Police seized my vehicle, documents and other property some of
which has never been returned. Months later xxxxxxxxxxx was mysteriously found dead. The Macur
review has the opportunity to ask retired Chief Inspector Gareth Luke about the
death of xxxxxxxx and the circumstances surrounding her death.

2.20Whilst I was assisting the Select committee during the
inquiry into ‘Arms to Iraq (document 3)
and was due to visit Parliament to brief members of the Select Committee I was
arrested again and quickly prosecuted for a fraudulent car tax disc on my car. An
out of date tax disc had been mysteriously moved from one of my cars to another.

2.21I visited the
Attorney General’s office at the request of Sir Patrick Mayhew. I made it clear
I was being persecuted by the NWP who were involved with organised crime. I
also made it clear that his Government would stop at nothing to cover-up their
illegal sales of arms and technology to Iraq and the involvement of
Conservative politicians in paedophilia. I made a case that these false arrests
were counter-productive as they did nothing to prevent the exposure but in fact
made the cover-up more obvious. Following this all charges was dropped by the
Prosecution.

2.22Due to my prominence in the ‘Arms to Iraq’ affair, the Conservative
Government and those involved in organised crime decided they could not simply
silence me. Had this not been the case I am quite certain my life and liberty would
have been in serious danger. In fact I was under close protective surveillance.

2.23Undaunted by the arrests I continued to liaise with the
Press and a growing number of concerned parties who networked. Amongst others,
I contacted Geoffrey Dickens MP because of his keen interest in exposing the
child porn network and VIP involvement. I also communicated with Tony Blair,
who was Shadow Home Secretary at the time, and who was keen to root out and
expose Police participation in child abuse and the cover-up of child abuse in
North Wales.

2.24Tony Blair wrote to the then Home Secretary Kenneth
Clarke about the child abuse. Kenneth Clarke who was recently Justice Secretary
in the current Government dismissed him and indeed anyone who raised concerns
about the NWP and child abuse. (Documents 4 and 5)

2.25Tony Blair later became Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom. The Macur Review has the opportunity to invite Tony Blair to disclose what
he knew then, and subsequently discovered, about NW Police involvement in child
abuse. The Review also has the opportunity to invite Tony Blair to disclose what
he knew about the cover-up of child abuse and the links to and protection of
the elite paedophile ring.

2.26I campaigned along with Politicians, the Press and
concerned others to have an all reaching Public Inquiry set-up. We sort a
Public Inquiry that would investigate the sexual, physical and psychological
abuse of children from Care Homes. The abuse was alleged to be by the Directors
and staff of the Homes, members of the extended paedophile network which
included famous names, police officers, politicians, businessmen and members of
the legal profession including judges. We also wanted specifically an
investigation into the on-going cover-up and the targeting of investigators,
whistle-blowers and victims.

2.27Around 1995 I was trained as a mental health advocate
and later as an appropriate adult. In my capacity as a Mental Health Advocate,
survivors of the systematic child abuse became my clients. I was in contact
with the Waterhouse Inquiry from the very beginning principally on behalf of my
clients.

2.28The Restrictions placed on the Media, by the Waterhouse
Inquiry, particularly not to publish names of persons who were named during the
Inquiry, unless they had already been convicted, meant that investigation and
reporting into the abuse was stifled.

2.30I carefully documented and filed letters and kept
contemporaneous notes in reporter’s notebooks of interviews with victims and
officials and Parliamentarians concerning the child abuse and the cover-up. I
kept dairies and all the documents provided to me both openly and in confidence
for example the contents of the Jillings report and statements from victims. Following
the Publication of the Waterhouse Inquiry report ‘Lost in Care’ I archived the
material collected. Until illness depleted my energy I continued to investigate
child abuse with particular interest in the child porn network and exploitation
of children. I collected evidence of, as Eileen Fairweather eloquently puts it,
child brothels, transportation routes, hotels and bars, fixers, providers of
false documents and outlets for the lucrative trade in images of child abuse.

2.31Eileen Fairweather an award winning journalist wrote in
November 2012 in the Guardian:-

‘Many survivors or
those supporting them have tried to point police towards the people and places
used to prostitute children. They have identified child brothels,
transportation routes, hotels and bars, fixers, providers of false documents
and outlets for the lucrative trade in images of child abuse. Almost none of
this evidence has ever been acted upon.

The child protection
whistleblower who contacted the MP Tom Watson last month did so because he was
once in a team of just the kind needed now. I was first in contact with his
team and wrote about it 19 years ago, before it was abruptly closed down by
orders from on high. It was a brilliant prototype, a joint police/social
services investigation into the ring around childcare guru Peter Righton. It
produced establishment names and revealed an alleged linked cover-up by Labour
– let usnever forget paedophilia is
a cross-party crime – and was shut down as a result. Not one of the implicated
men was prosecuted.’

2.32The Cover-up of Child Abuse is on-going

2.32.1The majority of my documentary evidence was taken
by 19 North Wales and Derby Police Officers headed by DC Winnard and DS Hunt on
January 13th 2010 who emptied my three flats of documents and
valuables. The warrant was signed by Derby Judge Burgess. A full list of the
thousands of documents taken has never been provided, neither has a list been
provided of the thousands of pounds worth of gold jewellery and heirlooms seized
at the same time. Save for my tenants firearms, filing cabinet and Rolex watch,
over three years later nothing seized has been returned either to me or my
tenant who has not even been questioned by the Police. My tenant’s solicitors
have so far failed to get a response asking for the return of his property and
valuables from the NW Police (witness statement available)

2.32.2I made a concerted effort to get my documents
about illegal arms sales and child abuse and journalistic material back, from
the Derby and North Wales Police, but whoever was behind the raid on my
property had enough power to ignore legitimate requests for the documents
return. Clearly DC Winnard and DS Hunt were not acting on their own as sanction
would be required to look at let alone seize/steal and keep documents and
computers from a prominent Intelligence Agent and her tenant who held Top
Secret clearance and had recently worked in Aldermaston.

2.32.3In February 2010 Lord Hoyle kindly personally
passed a letter to Gordon Brown who was Prime Minister at the time and with whom
I had communicated previously. In the letter I advised Gordon Brown of the
seizure of my documents and asked his assistance in getting them returned. (Document
6)

2.32.4On the 17th March April 2010 Lord
Hoyle of Warrington wrote to the Chief Constable of Derby Mike Creedon later to
the Chief Constable of North Wales Mark Polin asking them to return the seized documents
and property to my tenant and myself. He asked them for “the return of all documents” (document 7 and 9)

2.32.5The result was that the Derby Police obtained a
Restraint Order from Judge Burgess on the April 7th 2010 which put a
veneer of legitimacy over the Police holding all my property and all my
documents, including excluded documents, and prevented anyone asking for their
return.To prevent me challenging the Restraint Order the Court made it
a contempt of Court for me to pay for legal advice or assistance. I applied for
Legal Aid but this was refused. This tactic has resulted in not one document or
item of property being returned in over three years

2.32.6Following repeated evidence that the Derby
Police were encouraging adverse publicity to be published against me I made a
complaint on the 16th of September to Derby Professional Standards complaining
that “Almost every document and every
moveable item of value was seized from the premises” and “The Seizure not only
included a large amount of documents and items not related to the investigation
but also included documents subject to legal privilege and excluded material.”
(A summary of the complaint is included in as Document 10) This, surprisingly,
did not elicit the return of the illegally seized material but acts as a
record. The trouble with files and evidence on child abuse by prominent people,
judges and police officers is that it invariably disappears.

2.32.7Judge Nicolas Parry, whom I knew as a solicitor
when he represented one or more of the accused paedophiles at the Waterhouse
Inquiry eventually presided over my case and still does. Eventually jailing me,
in my absence, for a total three years although he admitted no-one had lost any
money and no one was harmed. He said I was led into offending by my work for
the intelligence services and my fragile mental health. I intent to appeal,
this wrongful conviction, as soon as the Court gives me permission to pay for
legal advice and assistance.

2.32.8The Restraint Order prevented me paying for legal
advice or assistance in effect depriving me of adequate legal advice or
assistance from the 7th April 2010 until the 30th February
2012 when the Court belatedly granted me Legal Aid. Following this a further
judgment denied me the right to the solicitor of my choice. The Court Ordered I
use Garstangs Solicitors or have no legal help at all. Garstangs refused to
follow instructions and were in effect assisting the prosecution either by
design or incompetence.

2.32.9These Court Orders, judgments and restraints
prevented me from, and still do prevent me from, obtaining a full list of the
documents and property seized from myself and my tenant. This includes not only
the documents but thousands of pounds worth of Gold jewellery which along with
the documents has been excluded from the selective lists made by the
prosecution.

2.32.10The Macur Review could ask for a full list of
the documents seized/taken from my tenant and I and a full list of the
valuables seized. so that evidence of child abuse and the cover-up of same can
be identified. Together with an explanation as to why proper lists of documents
and items seized/taken was not made?

2.32.11Fortunately some of my diaries, letters and
other documents had been saved from the Police raid. A substantial amount of
these were stolen, along with my two vehicles, both of which were restrained by
a Restraint Order, and other property and my cat, Miss Kitty from North Wales
around September 2012.

2.32.12The thieves Mathew Pike and Robert Ostler, whom
I knew as we were once all members of Bangor Gun Club, admitted the theft of my
property. They knew that the vehicles were on a Restraint Order and stealing
the vehicles or dealing with then whilst on a Restraint Order made the theft
more serious. I made a formal complaint to the NWP and was provided with incident
number N207229.

2.32.13Following
this I received an e-mail from one of the thieves Robert Ostler who stole my
Land Rover and he wrote to me saying “All of any property Mat may have of yours will be placed in the Land Rover
which I have been advised NOT to release to you by Craig Law at RART North
Yorkshire” Craig Law of the prosecution appears to have bizarrely
authorised the thieves not to return my two vehicles, my property, my documents
or my cat.

2.32.14Would the Macur Review ask Craig Law of RART
Yorkshire for a list of the documents stolen so that evidence concerning child
abuse and the cover-up can be identified?

2.32.15Around the 22nd of March 2013 as I
was writing this report the prosecution had my Co-operative Bank account into
which my State Pension and income is paid frozen. This has left me unable to
pay my rent, buy food or medication without which I will rapidly deteriorate
and eventually die.

2.32.16The actions of the Police in wrongfully seizing
and withholding evidence of child abuse, and Police treatment of investigators
and whistleblowers leads towards a reasonable deduction that; the cover-up of
the abuse, particularly in North Wales is continuing and not at all historic.

2.32.17I believe the reasons behind the perverse
actions of the Police and the Prosecuting authorities were to discredit me.
They have persecuted my tenant and I, as well as blackmailing witnesses and
fabricating evidence. More importantly their intention could have been to
prevent me giving evidence against the paedophile network and linked organised criminal
activities, which I had investigated whilst working for and with the
Intelligence Services. Their intention could also have been to seize and
conceal evidence of same.

2.32.18I am currently a refugee in xxxxxxxx and the Government
have kindly provided entirely free of charge experienced Human Rights lawyers
to represent me. My Lawyers have noted and explained to me the clear International
Human Rights Abuses perpetrated by the United Kingdom against me and abuse of
process.

2.32.19I am one of many who have been ruthlessly
persecuted by those in who fear that the truth about historic and current child
abuse will surface. It is likely the Review will receive testimony of
suspicious incidents, arrests, threats and suspicious suicides and accidents.

2.32.20In November 2012 Wrexham County Councillor Malcolm
King had a mysterious accident in which he narrowly escaped death. Cll King,
who had recently renewed his campaign for a fresh probe into child abuse in
Wales following the revelations about Jimmy Savile, Said “I’m someone who speaks his mind,” he said. “If I know something is
happening that I don’t like I will always speak out and try to change things. “I
spent a lot of time when the allegations first surfaced being incredibly
paranoid.” “I didn’t know who to trust other than family. It was a terrible
time.” Sadly the threats, the intimidation, the arrests and persecution
continue.

2.32.21All this goes to suggest that the cover-up is
very much on-going and this puts children at risk. It protects those involved
in the child sex trade and allows the persecution of those who are a threat to
the paedophiles or a threat to those involved in the historic and current
cover-up.

2.32.22The cover-up should end with the Macur Review so
that vulnerable children, now and in the future, can be protected by the
agencies of the State. Agencies of the State and their officers and or
employees who are involved in child abuse either directly or indirectly should risk
prosecution and censure not, as is now the case, immunity and promotion.

2.32.23The current Review should be provided with the
testimony of those persons who were involved both historically and recently in the
destruction and or theft/seizure of evidence concerning child abuse and the
cover-up.

2.33The current review has the opportunity to take
testimony from the politicians and journalists and investigators and officials
involved

3Question 1. - Were
the terms of reference for the Waterhouse Inquiry sufficiently wide to address
all matters of legitimate public interest and or disquiet concerning
allegations of continuing abuse of children in care and the nature of child
care procedures and practice in North Wales?

3.1The terms of reference were either not far reaching
enough or could be used and were used to restrict the inquiry to areas of investigation.
This prevented all matters to which the public had a legitimate interest being examined
and or investigated.

3.2Below is a list identifying the New Child Abuse
Inquiries and Police Investigations recently begun by the United Kingdom
Government into the decades of Child Abuse and the cover-ups of that abuse;-

b)BBC
investigation into management failures over the dropping of a Newsnight
report into the Savile allegations,

c)BBC
investigation into culture and practices during Sir Jimmy Savile's career
and current policies,

d)BBC
investigation into handling of past sexual harassment claims,

e)Department
of Health investigation into Sir Jimmy Savile's appointment to Broadmoor
"taskforce" and his activities at Broadmoor, Stoke Mandeville
Hospital and Leeds General Infirmary,

f)Director
of Public Prosecutions review into decisions not to prosecute Savile in
2009,

g)North
Wales abuse inquiry by National Crime Agency head into abuse claims from
70s and 80s, fresh claims, and police handling of the claims,

h)Mrs
Justice Macur appointed by PM to review the 2000 Waterhouse review which
looked into the north Wales abuse,

i)Kincora
- In March 2013 Police re-opened an investigation into the NI Kincora
scandal child abuse scandal PSNI spokesman said: “There is currently a public
inquiry on-going in relation to historical abuse. Individuals are being encouraged
to contact Judge Hart, who is heading the inquiry”

3.3Lost in Care was published in 2000 and yet 12 years
later a spate of new reviews and investigations have had to be convened because
the Waterhouse Inquiry was woefully inadequate and wrongfully avoided exposing
the Paedophile ring which Sir Jimmy Savile and others procured for. The Waterhouse
inquiry failed to investigate the operation of the elite paedophile ring and
the child porn network in North Wales and its links outside of North Wales. It
also failed to investigate the cover-up. These failures together with the
protection extended to elite paedophiles by the NWP and the CPS aided the
paedophiles to not only escape prosecution but to continue to operate.

"I was raising in parliament
against Mrs Thatcher the Kincora Boys Home where boys were being abused and MI5
was filming it because they were hoping to be able to blackmail senior politicians
in Northern Ireland. They were hoping to catch one of Ian Paisley's MP's - and
they never did - and give themselves some leverage. The truth is there's been
an awful lot of covering up of paedophiles and paedophile rings for decades and
decades."

3.4.2Tony Blair raised the issue in the early 1990’s;
as evidenced by the his letters

3.4.3On the 12th November 1992 Tony Blair wrote to
the then Home Secretary Kenneth Clarke:-

“As you will no doubt be aware,
the allegations being made against some half a dozen serving and retired police
officers in respect of child abuse in North Wales are extremely serious.
Assurances have been made by the Deputy Chief Constable of N. Wales that there
will be no cover-up in the circumstances can I urge you to consider
recommending that an outside police force be involved.”

3.4.5Rod Richards MP named Sir Peter Morrison as
an abuser of children from North Wales care Homes.3.5The Macur Review now has the opportunity to ask, for
the accused police officers, who remain alive, to be questioned by an outside
force. There is also an opportunity to ask Kenneth Clarke why he dismissed the
concerns of Tony Blair as well as questioning other politicians as to what they
knew and when.

3.6The Terms of reference restricted the inquiry
unnecessarily into abuse from 1974 and to the specific areas of Gwynedd and
Clwyd. Complaints have been made that the Organisation owned by and operated
under the flag of Bryn Alyn Community included Homes outside of this net such
as Cotsbrook Hall in Telford.

3.7There appears to be no compelling reason not to include
all the Care Homes operated by the paedophiles directing the Bryn Alyn
Community. This organisation, centred in North Wales was funded by the State
and used to procure children for the ‘sex trade’.

3.8Evidence existed that children were removed from the
Care Homes in North Wales and Care Homes throughout the United Kingdom where
they would be exploited in the sex trade by a sophisticated nationwide
organisation of elite paedophiles.

3.9Allegations were made concerning the exploitation and
procurement of children from North Wales Care Homes to a Hotel in Wrexham,
Dolphin Square London and private properties in various places which were
either owned by paedophiles or were safe-houses owned by various state agencies.
The allegations exposed the tip of a network which included Peter Righton, Sir
Jimmy Savile and various well known people in the procurement, exploitation and
even murder of children for the sex trade. The public had a legitimate interest
in the investigation of these allegations.

3.10Other allegations whilst not specifically concerning exploitation
of children from care homes in North Wales were made concerning exploitation in
other care homes in the UK. The nationwide practice of exploiting children in
State care for the sex trade should have been a matter which was taken up by
the Waterhouse inquiry or otherwise a recommendation made for a Nationwide
Inquiry. Once these allegations of very serious and organised criminal
activities surfaced they should not have been ignored because of the limited
terms of reference.

3.11The Public had a legitimate interest in the full
exposure and investigation of the horrific sexual, physical and psychological
abuse of children and subsequent and satellite issues arising from that abuse. This
included full and proper investigation of public figures, police officers,
judges, intelligence personnel, civil servants and others accused of horrific
crimes or the cover-up of those crimes. The Public had a legitimate interest in
the exposure of the extent and nature of the cover-up and the names and
organisation involved in the cover-up. This is particularly the case as more
than one Home Secretary was believed to have been involved.

3.12For there to be no further on-going concern about the
welfare of children in North Wales, it was essential to root out, expose and
prosecute those who were involved in both the abuse and the cover-up of that abuse.

3.13Fraud

3.13.1It is reported that Local
authorities paid more than £28 million to the Bryn Alyn community of children’s
homes. Their owner John Allen was jailed in 1995 for child abuse. John Allen
also gave gifts from public funds to the abused children as hush money, one single
boy being paid £25,000. The Inquiry however did not appear to fully investigate
the financial affairs of John Allen or the matter of the
gross waste of public money. Public money, which for decades, had been poured into
the pockets of paedophiles who were exploiting the children in their care. The Inquiry
should have investigated all the people who benefited from this massive fraud
and those who covered it up for reasons of personal gain such as the child procurers.

3.14Suspicious Deaths

3.14.1Journalist Nick Davies wrote in 1997 that: - On the fringe of the tribunal hearing, there
are disturbing suggestions of a violent cover-up. The London Evening Standard
has run a series of stories about two brothers, Adrian Johns and Lea Homburg,
who were abused by a convicted paedophile named John Allen. Allen ran a complex
of homes in North Wales and London and is said to have been supplying boys to
wealthy outsiders. The Standard reported that the two brothers were trying to
blackmail him when, in April 1992, Adrian was burned to death in a house fire
in Brighton. Lea later died in mysterious circumstances.

A dozen others who complained of abuse by the alleged ring have also
died. One is said to have slipped on ice on a railway bridge and fallen to his
death. Another, who was found dead in his flat was said to have died of natural
causes; he was aged 21. Several are said to have committed suicide although in
the case of one of them, his mother said his supposed suicide note was written
in someone else’s handwriting. Others died apparently through abusing heroin,
alcohol and solvents’.

3.14.2Suspicious deaths of child abuse victims include:-

a)Robert Chapman, a former resident of Bryn Alyn, fell to
his death from a railway bridge.

b)Robert Arthur Smith, a former resident of Bryn Alyn,
killed himself in May 1978, aged 16, by overdosing on painkillers.

c)Barry Williams, former resident of Little Acton
Assessment centre, Clwyd, found dead in a flat where he lived in poverty, aged
21.Peter Davies died 1985.

e)Heath Kelvin Jones, former resident of Bryn Alyn, found
dead in 1992 in a bedsit, aged 18. Cause of death, acute respiratory failure
due to solvent abuse.

f)Peter Wynn hanged himself in January 1994, aged 27.

g)Brendon Randalls, former Bryn Estyn resident, died aged
27 from alcohol abuse in April 1994.

h)Richard Williams was found dead in a car aged 18 in
July 1994.

i)Craig Wilson hanged himself in November 1994 aged 16.

j)Lee Johns, also known as Lee Homberg, former resident
of Bryn Alyn where it was alleged he had been sexually abused. Died in February
1995 aged 37.

k)Mark Humphries hanged himself in February 1995 aged 31.

l)Simon Birley, former resident of Bryn Estyn, was found
hanging in May 1995 aged 27

m)Tony Wallis found dead 1996.

The Macur Review has the opportunity to have these deaths
investigated to ascertain if they are indeed part of the cover-up and if there
is or is not a sinister reason for the deaths of these men.

3.15The Waterhouse Inquiry did make some crucial
recommendations which still need to be implemented for example Whistle-blowing

3.16Whistle-blowing

3.16.1The Inquiry did properly conclude that the
discouragement of whistle-blowing may persist and fear of reprisals should be
eliminated.

3.16.2(92) There is real danger that the
discouragement of "whistle blowing" may persist and positive action
is required to ensure that the new procedures are implemented conscientiously
and that any fear of reprisals is eliminated

3.16.3Whistleblowers continue to be persecuted by those
who profit from the exploitation of children. The climate has not improved
because those who were active in the cover-up were all left in place so there
was no chance of a culture change.

3.17Prolific paedophiles like Sir Jimmy Savile who
was close to the Royal Family and Margret Thatcher and in and out of Downing
Street were positively vetted, Metropolitan Police Commander Peter Spindle said
that Savile's crimes were 'vast,
predatory and opportunistic' They spanned 54 years ending in 2009 54 years of
cover-up.”

3.18The power and influence of the paedophile network in
the United Kingdom is such that even Prime Ministers fear to expose it. The
abused children were terrified by the power their abusers had over the police
and the judiciary “when we were boys it
was not just the sex abuse it was the gagging, beatings and threats to kill
which still wake me in the dead of night “recalled one man

3.19Because the paedophile ring has such far reaching power,
investigators like myself whistleblowers and survivors are at risk of
persecution and even assassination. The paedophile ring could silence almost
anyone using bribery, blackmail or intimidation or worse. The extent and
success of the cover-up provides clear evidence of a powerful, influential,
well organised criminal group

3.20Anne
Machon former MI5 officer said “the need for integrity in intelligence,
describing the terrible ethical dilemma that confronts government employees who
witness illegal activity including serious threats to public safety and fraud,
waste and abuse.”

3.21Cover-up

3.21.1The Terms of Reference or the interpretation of
the Terms of Reference excluded the investigation of Government and its various
agencies complicity in the cover-up of child abuse.

3.21.2Whilst the names of VIP paedophiles are of
interest it is in fact the cover-up involving the police, Local Government, the
security and intelligence services and the Courts which protects paedophiles
from exposure and prosecution and enables the persecution of survivors and
those who try to expose child abuse

3.21.3Certainly
the public had then and do now have a legitimate interest in learning the
extent and nature of the elite paedophile Ring. The public have an even wider
interest in the extent of the cover-up and the nature of the agencies involved
in the cover-up because this goes to the very heart of the Justice System in
the United Kingdom. In this instance the cover-up involved children who
were let down by the very system and agencies designed to protect them. The
children in effect were without the protection of the United Kingdom because
the organs of State had turned against them and were at the very least party to
the cover-up if not the actual abuse.

‘From East Belfast's Kincora Boys' Home, via Leicestershire,
Staffordshire and London, to the children's homes of Clwyd, we have witnessed
25 years of cover-up. Cover-up, not to protect the innocent but to protect the
regularly named elements of the British establishment who surface whenever
widespread evidence of child abuse is exposed.

From the public schools right through to the Catholic and Anglican
churches, child abuse has been allowed a special place of sanctuary... Social
workers, police, security services, local and national political figures remain
the common factors in the fall-out from the [child abuse] inquiries...

In case after case the cycle is described - a child is 'taken into
care', then abused in a home, handed on to an outside paedophile ring and out
on to the rent-boy/prostitution circuit beyond, if they live that long...
Journalists find themselves battling first with authority, then with the libel
laws, to publish the truth about a vast web of abuse.’

4Question 2 - Was any
undue restriction placed upon the terms of reference to prevent a full inquiry
or examination of the evidence in order to protect any individual or
organisation?

4.1I repeat paragraphs:-

3.3
to 3.4.5,

3.8
to 3.9,

3.13
to 3.13.1,

3.17
to 3.18

&

3.21
to 3.21.4.

4.2The terms of reference were either not far reaching
enough or could be used and were used to restrict the inquiry to areas of
investigation which did protect particular Groups and Individuals. Terms of
reference are necessary but should have been as wide as possible where the
protection of vulnerable children was at issue and the exploitation of those
children by individuals and bodies the State has placed in power over them. Where
it was clear those individuals and bodies to whom the State had given control
had not just been guilty of wholesale negligence but were accused of
exploitation on a grand scale.

4.3The decision by Sir Ronald Waterhouse, to grant
anonymity to all those who are alleged to have belonged to the paedophile ring
made it almost impossible for the public to make any judgement about the
strength of the allegations.

4.4Threats by the Sir Ronald Waterhouse of High Court
Proceedings for Contempt if journalists or the media mentioned the allegations
made during the Inquiry against VIP paedophiles and the ring to which they
belonged prevented media exposure of the ring. These threats caused a halt to
investigation into the ring.

4.5The more disturbing effect of protecting elite
paedophiles with anonymity was that many victims were afraid to testify against
them to the Tribunal. Victims claim that they had been burgled, had their
vehicles interfered with and threatened with being murdered or suicided if they
talked. For years their complaints of abuse had gone unheard and they claimed
that members of the paedophile ring were protected by the North Wales Police.

4.6It seems that the Waterhouse Inquiry primarily
considered the conduct of the staff at the children’s homes and did not look
too far beyond this to the wider picture of abuse perpetrated by the paedophile
ring operating outside these establishments. A paedophile ring which
evidentially included high profile individuals.

4.7Nick Davies of the Guardian wrote in 1996 that:-

“Policemen, social
workers and prominent public figures have been accused of belonging to a
paedophile ring which indulged in a relentless campaign of physical and sexual
abuse in children’s homes in North Wales. The names of the alleged members of
the ring have been given by witnesses in public sessions of the North Wales
Child Abuse Tribunal, but they have been suppressed by the tribunal’s chairman,
Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, who has threatened the media with High Court
proceedings if they print them,”

4.8Then there are the linked issues of the Paedophile
Information Exchange(PIE) and Peter Righton who was a childcare consultant for
the National Children’s Bureau and then Director of Education at the
prestigious National Institute of Social Work in London which had some direct
influence over policy matters under the Thatcher government before he lost his
reputation when he was convicted in 1992 on charges of importing and
distributing illegal pornographic material (for which he was fined £900). The Organisation
to which Peter Righton belonged had links to extremely disturbing child abuse,
even murder and child pornography including snuff videos. This well connected
organisation had links to the Foreign Office and the Home Office. It was the
duty of the tribunal to investigate Peter Righton’s and PIE’s possible links to
the scandal of children abused in care in North Wales.”

4.9Historic Cover-up

4.9.1What struck me and everyone involved was the
extent of the cover-up and the organisations involved in the cover-up. These
included the police, the judiciary, the crown prosecution service, hospitals,
councils and social services. The crucial organisation involved, fully aware of
all the sordid details and without whom the cover-up could not have continued
was the NWP

4.9.2The Terms of Reference or the interpretation of
the Terms of Reference excluded the investigation of Government and its various
agencies complicity in the cover-up of child abuse. This prevented proper
investigation into allegations of child abuse and the subsequent cover-up. People
in the following groups were protected.

a)Senior Politicians,

b)Legal Professionals including judges,

c)Businessmen,

d)Police Officers,

e)Entertainers,

f)Paedophile offenders in the wider network for example
the Peter Righton and Jimmy Savile’s network.

4.9.3Individuals from these groups (Ref 4.9.2 above) named by survivors who were not questioned or investigated about
the allegations were certainly protected by the Inquiry. The information about
the wider paedophile network and individual paedophiles was not passed on to
any other investigating body, as far as I am aware. Certainly Sir Jimmy Savile
would have been apprehended and prosecuted and many children saved if
information had been acted upon.

4.9.4One survivor knowingly wrote that “The people involved in this, are by their
very nature secretive, they will never be open and honest about anything they
do, and that has, and always will be the case. They lie, cheat, deceive and
commit criminal and immoral acts of every kind, as they know full well that
they can safely hide behind the facade of respectability that their wealth,
power and position brings them.”

5Question 3 If not,
did the Tribunal appear to restrict the terms of reference to avoid
investigation or examination of relevant evidence?

5.1In my opinion, the Tribunal appeared to restrict the
terms of reference to avoid investigation or examination of relevant evidence,
as I detail in the following paragraphs.

“(83) During the period under review
there was a paedophile ring in the Wrexham and Chester areas in the sense that
there were a number of male persons, many of them known to each other, who were
engaged in paedophile activities and were targeting young males in their middle
teens. The evidence does not establish that they were solely or mainly
interested in persons in care but such youngsters were particularly vulnerable
to their approaches.”

5.6The decades of sexual, physical
and mental abuse of children in the Care Homes and Approved Schools under
consideration were not only for the gratification of perverse sexual and
sadistic desires of a group of paedophiles but this abuse was also extremely
lucrative.

5.7Large amounts of public funds were paid to paedophiles
to run the establishments. All the running costs of maintaining a supply of
children available to be sold to VIP paedophiles and available for the making
of child pornography was funded by the State.

5.8Vast profits come from the procurement of children for
the child sex trade and lucrative child porn trade. Although the NWP were fully
aware of both the abuse and the child sex trade they failed to take proper
action to arrest the criminals involved in this sophisticated organised crime
or stop the exploitation of societies most vulnerable children.

5.9Tragically the NWP actually protected elite
paedophiles, NWP Officers were named by the survivors of this horrific abuse
and not one was charged. Despite the Fact that the paedophile network was
identified during the Waterhouse Inquiry and highlighted in the resulting
Report ‘Lost in Care’ the NWP failed to take any action. Lessons certainly were
not learned and those responsible for the cover-up were left in place to infect
the system of child care.

5.10Court Orders destruction of evidence

5.10.1Damming evidence, in the form of Photographs, of
the sexual abuse was ordered by the Court to be destroyed.This protected the
paedophiles in the photographs and prevented proper investigation into the
paedophile ring.

The Review has an opportunity to
take evidence from Sian Griffiths so as to develop a more comprehensive view of
the culture which created a situation where the Court itself ordered the
destruction of vital evidence against paedophiles.

5.10.3Again and again it is revealed that evidence
against paedophiles is destroyed or seized and or disappears and is hardly ever
apparently recoverable or acted upon. 5.10.4For example Geoffrey Dickens MP gave a 30 page
dossier on child abuse to Home Secretary Leon Brittan in 1983. This has since ‘disappeared’.
Photographic evidence of child abuse is destroyed by Order of the Court. The
Jillings report into child abuse in North Wales was also ordered to be pulped
by order of the County Council. Investigators and whistleblowers evidence of
child abuse is seized.. Evidence of child brothels, transportation routes,
hotels and bars, fixers, providers of false documents and outlets for the trade
in images of child abuse and snuff videos that has been identified also is
ignored. Tragically all the evidence either disappears or is ignored.

Wherever this has happened the Review
now has the opportunity to ask those involved to account for the disappearance
of evidence of child abuse and reasons why intelligence was and is not acted
on.

6Question 4 - Was any
pressure brought to bear upon those participating in the Inquiry whether as
members of the Tribunal, its staff, legal teams, witnesses or contributors to
deflect, deter or conceal evidence of relevance to the Waterhouse Inquiry?

6.1Pressure was, I understand, brought to bear upon witnesses
and pressures of a more nefarious nature existed to prevent exposure of the
full facts and evidence concerning child abuse.

7Question 5 - Were
witnesses prevented or discouraged otherwise from giving relevant oral evidence
or making statements? If so, by whom and/or in what circumstances.

7.1I repeat paragraphs 6.3
to 6.4.

7.2The climate in which witnesses, who did come forward,
were expected to give evidence was not conducive to a fair inquiry. Vulnerable
witnesses were not offered protection. They had not only suffered years of
abuse at the hands of paedophiles but following this many had experienced
threats and persecution from the NWP. The State agencies which protected their
abusers from prosecution were ever ready to prosecute the vulnerable survivors
for misdemeanours or invented crimes.

7.3Mr Jillings former Director of Derbyshire Social
Services whose report ‘the Jillings report’ into the Child abuse in North Wales
Children’s Homes was pulped on the orders of the Council said he was “baffled by North Wales Police’ failure to
cooperate with his investigation”.

7.4Although the NWP were aware of both the abuse and the
child sex trade they failed to take proper action to arrest the criminals
involved in this sophisticated organised crime or stop the exploitation of
societies most vulnerable children. Further to this they protected the VIP
elite paedophiles and their own organisation. Nineteen Police officers were
named by the survivors of this horrific abuse and not one was properly
investigated or charged. There had been a number of failed Police
investigations where paedophiles had escaped prosecution and victims had not
been listened to.

7.5Witnesses I spoke to were aware that VIP paedophiles,
which the Inquiry was so clearly protecting from exposure and prosecution, were
able to employ means through the police and other agencies to persecute them. It
is not too farfetched to say that some were in fear for their lives.

7.6The Inquiry failed to provide a safe place where
witnesses were encouraged to tell the whole truth. It failed to protect the
witnesses or offer protection.

7.7It is vital where decades of cover-up of sexual abuse
and mental and physical torture precede an Inquiry that the witnesses are
guaranteed a fair hearing and total protection from those who can harm them.
This was not done and in consequence witnesses were deterred from revealing the
whole truth.

7.8The witnesses had been taken as children by State agencies,
in many instances with police involvement and placed in the hands of
paedophiles by the State. They were then subjected to years of abuse and
torture. If they escaped the NWP would bring them back to the paedophiles where
they would be beaten and placed in solitary confinement.

7.9This together with the suspicious deaths, interference
with vehicles and threats led to a climate of fear where those who would have
given evidence were too afraid to do so.

7.10The Review may
consider offering real protection to witnesses and guaranteeing their safety. With
protection in place those who feared to speak out in the Waterhouse Tribunal
may feel able to speak out now.

8Question
6 - Were all relevant witnesses invited to furnish statements and/or be heard
by the Inquiry? If not, why not?

8.1Relevant witnesses, including journalists, who were involved
in the investigation of the sexual, physical and mental abuse of the children
in North Wales care homes were not called to give evidence and should have been.
Politicians, who knew about the cover-up should have been called but were not.
VIP’s and a number of police officers who were accused by the victims were not
called and should have been.

8.2I repeat paragraphs:-

3.43.17
to 3.4.53.19,

4.7,

4.8,

4.9.14.9.2,

&

5.10.4.

8.3Journalist Nick Davies wrote in 1997 that One lawyer
who has been involved with the tribunal said he feared that the anonymity
ruling was actively discouraging witnesses. “Newspaper
readers may well have information of potential value to this tribunal. They may
themselves have been the victims of abuse, or they may have worked with the
alleged abusers. But if the press is not allowed to inform them of the names of
those against whom allegations are made, they will not learn that their
information is important. So they will not come forward.”

8.4I had a number of conversations with the inquiry team
and found that there was an aura of deep concern and an unwillingness to
venture into the dark underbelly of child abuse. It was my opinion that they
were ill prepared to explore the truth and may have been actually afraid. Pressure
can be brought to bear and people can be silenced in sophisticated ways.

8.5It was crucial for the inquiry to investigate the
cover-up because without the cover-up the abuse would have been quickly
exposed, the abusers arrested and convicted. The cover-up was responsible for permitting
the abuse to continue for decades not because the paedophiles were cautious and
clever but because the paedophiles could rely on the police, local government
and state agencies to protect them from exposure and prosecution.

8.6Those who investigated or had intelligence on the
cover-up should have been invited to give evidence. Those involved in the
cover-up should have been questioned on that specific matter and called to give
evidence. But the real cover-up was not mentioned as far as I am aware the
inquiry used words like, obstruction,
incompetence, failure. These are words of excuse; where children were
brutally sexually and physically abused over decades because of a deliberate
cover-up, excuses are unacceptable.

9Question 7 - Were
witnesses given adequate support (e.g. legal advice, advocacy or counselling)
to facilitate giving evidence to the Inquiry?

9.1Witnesses were not given adequate support in the form
of advocacy or counselling

9.2The Mental Health advocacy scheme for which I worked
one day a week was a private scheme funded by Sainsbury’s Plc. We worked mainly
with the Hergest unit a mental health unit at Ysybty Gwynedd hospital. We also
operated as Appropriate Adults for those vulnerable adults arrested by the NWP.
We were not encouraged to support the witnesses to the Inquiry and no funding
was in place. I was the only trained advocate who supported the witnesses from
the scheme.

9.3I had not been trained as a counsellor but I did
provide the best service I could. The Survivors went over the abuse with me and
in doing so relived the experience. I understand they were promised counsellors
but as far as I am aware they were not provided.

9.4The victims were dragged into a public court to recite
their ordeals and only given expenses if they brought in their bus tickets so I
was told. It was painful to see the trauma they suffered having to relive the
terrifying and traumatic experiences without proper support.

9.5The Inquiry was some distance from where my clients
lived. All my clients lived in the villages surrounding Bangor. I supported
them to the best of my ability and helped with transport on occasion.

9.6My clients were not provided with independent legal advice
or representation. A group of 30 or so victims were represented by a Pannone
and Partners who are specialists in child abuse Solicitor Richard Scorer from Pannone said in November
2012 that:-

“the
terms of reference were an important restriction. It’s also fair to say at that
time, and were going back to the mid 1990’s here at that time the idea that
senior public figures,politicians,celebreties could be involved in child abuse
was seen as a bit far-fetched.” and “We now know of course from recent revelations
that it isn’t far-fetched at all-and that’s part of the reason why it is
important that these allegations are looked at again”

9.7The alleged paedophiles had solicitors to represent
them. Mold and Caernarfon Crown Court Judge Niclas Parry, then a solicitor, represented
one or more of the paedophiles at that time told the BBC at the commencement of
the inquiry that:-

"Our concern at
the start of this major inquiry is that perhaps public opinion has swayed the
balance far too greatly in favour of those who make allegations of abuse and
the understandable anxiety to look after their needs and care may outweigh
justice."

9.8In my view each vulnerable witness should have been
provided with independent legal representation of their choice provided freely
by the State. Equality of arms was necessary to prevent bullying and witnesses
being told what they could and could not put in their statements. Without
proper support it was highly unlikely vulnerable witnesses felt comfortable in
giving evidence or were permitted to give the evidence they would have wished.

9.9I hope the Macur Review will consider providing victims
with access to professional counselling and State provided legal advice and
assistance on an individual basis. For too long the survivors have been let
down by the State which itself was responsible for the horrific abuse they
suffered and the legacy of that abuse which has bighted the lives of many.

10Question 8 - Were
the arrangements made for the Inquiry, including but not limited to, notice of
the Inquiry and its proceedings, witness interviewing, location of Tribunal
headquarters, configuration of hearing chamber, oral evidence taking, conducive
to encourage the participation of relevant witnesses.

10.1As far as I am aware notice of the inquiry and its
proceedings were properly made and reported in the press. However I was actively
involved and following the Inquiries progress. I did not have any clients
living outside of the North Wales area.

10.2I understand from victims that those living outside of
North Wales were not informed of the Inquiry or invited to attend. Many
Survivors suffer mental difficulties as a direct result of the horrific abuse
they suffered and it should have been obvious they needed to be traced so that
they could be encouraged to give evidence. This was not done and thereby
justice was not done.

10.3For my clients the location was unfortunate and caused
them considerable difficulty. This difficulty could have been alleviated if proper
arrangements for transport had been made for those witnesses who lived more than
15 miles from the inquiry headquarters especially where witnesses may live in
rural areas with poor public transport facilities.

10.4It is my view that the witnesses were neither adequately
supported nor encouraged to attend the Inquiry. Their emotional and mental health
was not considered and it is without doubt that many refused to come forward to
give evidence because they did not believe they would have a fair hearing. Others
feared the NWP and the power of the monsters who had abused them as children

10.5For those who did come forward it was traumatic having
to relive the terrifying experiences of childhood rape and mental and physical
abuse without adequate mental health support.

Had appropriate consideration been
given to the witnesses and a proper appreciation of the ordeal they were being
asked to go through, then the evidence would have been clearer and the
witnesses would not have suffered further damage.

11CONCLUSION

The Waterhouse team were aware of
the allegations of the elite paedophile ring and the cover-up. The existence of
an elite paedophile ring has been an open secret in Parliament, the police and
security and intelligence services, the courts and local governments for
decades. The most compelling necessity to insure that children were protected
in the future was to expose the cover-up and the Waterhouse Tribunal of Inquiry
avoided doing so.

I confirm that the above facts set
out in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed

Andrea Davison

DONATE NOW TO HELP FUND ANDREA DAVISON'S APPEAL

DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO THE MACUR REVIEW STATEMENT

1Inquiry into Exports of Defence Equipment

2Inquiry into Exports of Defence Equipment

3Letter Stan Crowther MP

4Letter Tony Blair MP

5Letter to Ken Clarke Home Secretary

6Letter Lord Warrington

7Letter to Chief Constable of Derby

8Letter to Andrea Davison

9Letter to Chief Constable of North Wales

10Complaint against Derby Police(reduced and redacted_

WITNESS
STATEMENT

This is a witness statement to
support Andrea Davison’scomplaint
against Police Officers from the Derby Constabulary. The matters set out in
this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

I am a senior citizen, disabled within
the meaning of the 2010 disability and equality act with a chronic incurable
illness. Formerly I was principally involved in the investigation of covert
arms deals and terrorism and the financial network underpinning this for and
with British Intelligence.

In December 2009 I was
advised that plain clothes men claiming to be from‘the met’ were making enquiries about my
home in north Wales by asking neighbours questions.I was not approached directly by these men who
I believe to have been police officers from a force outside of Wales.

I believe my business
colleagues Denis and Phil Holt of MOAS Mail Service Cheshire had given
information to DC Winnard and DS Hunt during inquiries into a former client
calling himself Robin Jacob.The
information included my address telephone number and e-mail. No telephone call
or message or e-mail or letter was received by me. To my knowledge a production
Order was not applied for and or served.

On the 5th of
January 2010 DC Winnard obtained a search warrant to search the premises (Exhibit
AD 1 page 1) I refer to search and Seizure 4.40 POCA (2002).

“A search and seizure warrant under s352
is a warrant to seize material likely to be of substantial value to the
investigation.It does not allow carte
blanch seizure no-matter how valuable it might be. The material seized must
relate to the particular investigation for which the warrant has been granted.”

Flat 1b was occupied by
an individual who held a firearms certificate issued by the North Wales Police
registered to the address, the individual had also been vetted and held top
Secret Clearance. This individual was not approached or contacted by the
Officers at the time or subsequently although the Officers retain his property.

On the 10th
of January 2010 my Flat was searched by 19 male police officers.I was in bed and woken up and subsequently
kept in my night dress all day until on or around 17.00 hrs whilst the 19 male
officers searched the premises.I was
prevented from getting dressed or leaving the property and prevented from
making a phone call.My request for a
female Officer to be present was also refused.

The Officers also searched Flat 1b and seized
from the individual’s firearms cabinet legally registered firearms and a
quantity of gold.They also seized a
large unlocked filing cabinet from the individual and a computer he used whilst
working at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The Filing cabinet included
documents subject to legal privilege and excluded material and had no
connection with the investigation in any way.

Almost every document
and every moveable item of value was seized from the premises including £100
and Euro 40 under the £1000 limit. The Seizure not only included a large amount
documents and items not related to the investigation but also included
documents subject to legal privilege and excluded material.

On the 16th
April 2010 DC Winnard stated to be a financial investigator made a witness
statement in support of a Restraint Order which was fanciful, did not make full
and frank disclosure and contained false statements. (I refer to Section 9
below).

Following this I was
informed DC Winnard made inquiries from my acquaintances. He asked about me and
gold and I was told DC Winnard had a personal grudge against me.

The Officers have
provided information about me to bloggers xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. This information included my
bail dates and details of the investigation against me whilst I was on Pre
Charge Bail.

RESTRAINT ORDER AND
WITNESS STATEMENT

Exhibit (AD1 page 85-102)

It is the Duty of the
Prosecutors to make full and Frank disclosure. They should put themselves in
the position of the Defence.This was
not done. There was no chance of dissipation. DC Winnard and DS Hunt had the
evidence in the form of e-mails and documents proving I was not involved in the
Fraud they were investigating.

DC WINNARD an accredited
financial investigator swore a false oath concerning matters material to a
judicial proceeding to obtain a Restraint Order against me. At Paragraph 3 he
states “I have conducted a financial investigation into the financial affairs
of Andrea Davison, hereinafter called DAVISON

A large body of the
witness statement is false or fanciful and is designed to give a false
impression there is no attempt to make full and frank disclosure.The Restraint order and Witness Statement
mainlyconcerns Regal and Archer LLC
and Quantum Holding LLC both companies stated in the Restraint Order to be
controlled by me Andrea Davison.

At Paragraph 5 the
Restraint Order States AND IT IS ORDERED THAT:-

The Assets of Regal and Archer LLC and Quantum Holdings
Limited are treated as the personal assets of the Defendant.

And goes on to name two bank accounts in Cyprus.

AT paragraph 8 of the
Restraint order“the Defendant must
within 21days after service of this Order upon her bring any movable asset in
respect of which she has an interest, which is outside England and Wales, to a
location within England and Wales.

The restraint order made
it a Contempt of Court for me not to repatriate within 21 days of service of
the Order money from 2 Cyprus Bank Accounts about which I had no Knowledge or
interest in and which I believe DC WInnard knew I had no knowledge or interest
in.

From on or around May 10th
2010 I have been in Contempt of Court because I did not repatriate the moneys
from the two Cyprus Bank Accounts.To be
placed in this invidious and terrifying position is against my convention
rights.

In the Witness statement
at paragraph 31 DC WInnard stated I claimed to have worked “for covert government agencies “thus misleading the Court as he
knew I worked for British Intelligence and had informed my Solicitor he had
contacted M15.Lord Warrington had also
written a letter to the Chief Constable mentioning my intelligence background.
Exhibit (AD1 page 103)

The term ‘covert
government agencies’ was used as a derogatory term I believe to suggest I
worked for British or Foreign intelligence agencies concerned in black operations,
or in the alternative DC Winnard considersBritish intelligence agencies to be ‘covert government agencies’ because
he does not support British Intelligence.

Under Realisable
Property DC Winnard states:-

“Davison is in
receipt of benefit payments”.This was false and as an accredited Financial Investigator it can be
assumed he knew it was false or alternatively was careless whether it was true
or false.

This violated my
Convention Rights and is particularly damaging to an elderly disabled lady.

DC Winnard knew the
Restraint Order prevented me from paying for legal advice or assistance.

Because of the terms of
the restraint order I was prevented from buying the necessities for life until
the Order was varied. The Order was varied only because my solicitor kindly
acted Pro Bono.

Further and other
evidence, information and witnesses are available to investigating officers.
The above outlines the basis of my complaint but I reserve the right to raise
other matters should it become necessary.

The Security Services operate the child protection system through a computer system called "The Child Health Surveillance System" using it for population surveillance and control.

Under the guise of child protection the security services have access to all of your confidential records.

The Modus Operandi is the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Child abuse allegations are never investigated but a database is maintained for later blackmail.

There is a very simple test that can be applied. Under section 1(1) Children and Young Peoples Act 1933, in respect to section 17, a person with parental responsibility for a child has an express criminal liability for keeping the child safe from the offence of child cruelty. I emphasise, keeping safe NOT perpetration.

When a child is in care the local authority hold parental responsibility. Since 1991 when the provisions came into force there has not been a single prosecution under these provisions.

There is an automatic prosecution when any child is neglected and abused and there are none.

Donate below to Andrea's Defence Fund or email defencefund@safe-mail.net for other options

Why Andrea Davison needs your help

Andrea Davison aged 63 who wrote this Statement for the Macur Review is fighting the State who have persecuted her relentlessly. She is being persecuted for telling the Truth about the sexual exploitation of children and for exposing the criminal organisation profiting from the child sex trade.

Judge Niclas Parry using a Court Order prevents Andrea from paying for legal advice or assistance. The State have siezed every item of value she owns including her home and inheritance from her late mother. In July 2013 a North Wales Judge said he would not give her a penny of her own money to live on.

Andrea needs you donation to help pay for her legal fees so her team of dedicated lawyers can fight on to expose the truth and recover the CSA documents taken by the Police.